14 May 2010
Thomas Jefferson says...
"They are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare...To consider the latter phrase...as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please which may be good for the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please...Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straightly within the enumerated powers and those without which, as means, these powers could not be carried into effect." ––Thomas Jefferson, Opinion on National Bank, 1791
20 January 2010
Shocking Thoughts From The Mind of Dan
Everyone wants to cast Scott Brown's victory in terms other than what it was: the people of Massachusetts choosing the best man...errr...person to represent them in the US Senate.
Here's my prediction/analysis: the 2008 presidential election partially occurred because of President Obama's excellent get-out-the-vote effort harnessing a new pool of voters, and partly because Republicans were frustrated and demoralized and lacked leadership.
The special election in Massachusetts demonstrates the same thing on the other side of the fence. Democrats are disappointed, disillusioned, and in disarray. They are unable to muster their voters to the polls for a special election.
I don't think Brown won because a bunch of Massachusettsians suddenly decided to become Tea Party Republicans. I think Brown won because 1) the Massachusetts Tea Partiers are motivated, will get out and vote, and wanted to send a message about helath care reform and, 2) Scott Brown ran an excellent campaign and won the trust of a wide variety of people, including a whole boatload of Democrats, in a way that his opponent didn't.
Here's the exciting thing--I think we are entering an era of weakened political parties. People--and not just the centrists or whimsical--are deeply disenchanted with both major political parties. The Tea Partiers who are celebrating Scott Brown's victory aren't celebrating a Republican victory, they're celebrating a Big Government defeat on the issue of health care reform and expanded government. They're as frustrated with the Republican Party as staunch libertarians such as myself. If Massachusetts and the approval ratings of the Democratically controlled Congress and White House are any indication, we could be seeing the same disenchantment hitting the Democratic political establishment as well.
Here's why that's excellent news: it decreases the value of that "R" or "D" behind a prospective representative's name and increases the value of that person's ideas, his or her skill in executing those ideas, and his or her connection to the electorate. So Scott Brown wins because he's "Scott Brown, a trustworthy fellow with great ideas, who won the confidence and enthusiasm of the people of Massachusetts, who happens to be on the Republican ticket," not "Scott Brown, Republican, who you should vote for because you don't want the Democrats to win."
In short, when the motivating power of a party affiliation to get out the vote decreases, the quality of political representatives increases, as they are judged more on their merits as representatives and their ability to marshall otherwise frustrated voters, rather than their connection to a political party. Additionally, the value of local flavor--being in close tune to the needs and opinions of their constituency rather than the national agenda of their party--increases.
Altogether, I think that's good for our democratic republic, and I'm curious at to how a Massachusetts Republican Senator votes. It should be an interesting show!
[Edit]
"It is becoming increasingly clear the extent to which November 2008 entailed a repudiation of the George W. Bush presidency rather than an affirmation of the Democratic Party platform. In particular, the public is looking primarily for a real improvement in the economy and secondarily for a resolution of our military's involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq." --David Orentlicher
Professor, co-dir., Center for Law and Health, Ind. University Schools of Law and Medicine
Here's my prediction/analysis: the 2008 presidential election partially occurred because of President Obama's excellent get-out-the-vote effort harnessing a new pool of voters, and partly because Republicans were frustrated and demoralized and lacked leadership.
The special election in Massachusetts demonstrates the same thing on the other side of the fence. Democrats are disappointed, disillusioned, and in disarray. They are unable to muster their voters to the polls for a special election.
I don't think Brown won because a bunch of Massachusettsians suddenly decided to become Tea Party Republicans. I think Brown won because 1) the Massachusetts Tea Partiers are motivated, will get out and vote, and wanted to send a message about helath care reform and, 2) Scott Brown ran an excellent campaign and won the trust of a wide variety of people, including a whole boatload of Democrats, in a way that his opponent didn't.
Here's the exciting thing--I think we are entering an era of weakened political parties. People--and not just the centrists or whimsical--are deeply disenchanted with both major political parties. The Tea Partiers who are celebrating Scott Brown's victory aren't celebrating a Republican victory, they're celebrating a Big Government defeat on the issue of health care reform and expanded government. They're as frustrated with the Republican Party as staunch libertarians such as myself. If Massachusetts and the approval ratings of the Democratically controlled Congress and White House are any indication, we could be seeing the same disenchantment hitting the Democratic political establishment as well.
Here's why that's excellent news: it decreases the value of that "R" or "D" behind a prospective representative's name and increases the value of that person's ideas, his or her skill in executing those ideas, and his or her connection to the electorate. So Scott Brown wins because he's "Scott Brown, a trustworthy fellow with great ideas, who won the confidence and enthusiasm of the people of Massachusetts, who happens to be on the Republican ticket," not "Scott Brown, Republican, who you should vote for because you don't want the Democrats to win."
In short, when the motivating power of a party affiliation to get out the vote decreases, the quality of political representatives increases, as they are judged more on their merits as representatives and their ability to marshall otherwise frustrated voters, rather than their connection to a political party. Additionally, the value of local flavor--being in close tune to the needs and opinions of their constituency rather than the national agenda of their party--increases.
Altogether, I think that's good for our democratic republic, and I'm curious at to how a Massachusetts Republican Senator votes. It should be an interesting show!
[Edit]
"It is becoming increasingly clear the extent to which November 2008 entailed a repudiation of the George W. Bush presidency rather than an affirmation of the Democratic Party platform. In particular, the public is looking primarily for a real improvement in the economy and secondarily for a resolution of our military's involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq." --David Orentlicher
Professor, co-dir., Center for Law and Health, Ind. University Schools of Law and Medicine
12 January 2010
The Semi-Regular Weekly Reader!
The White House quietly changes the manner in which it reports jobs saved or created by the stimulus package...thus solving the problem of the known inaccuracy of the numbers shown on it's recovery.gov website.
Some sensible talk from my favorite legal bloggers on the Harry Reid gaffe.
In the middle of forcibly devaluing his own country's currency, Hugo Chavez's Venezuelan Air Force intercepts a US Military Plane and escorts it out of Venezuelan airspace. The Venezuelans are, of course, manage this using F-16 jetfighters, the best jets money can buy...manufactured in and purchased from the United States. It must be rough, being dependent on those capitalist bastards across the pond!
Some sensible talk from my favorite legal bloggers on the Harry Reid gaffe.
In the middle of forcibly devaluing his own country's currency, Hugo Chavez's Venezuelan Air Force intercepts a US Military Plane and escorts it out of Venezuelan airspace. The Venezuelans are, of course, manage this using F-16 jetfighters, the best jets money can buy...manufactured in and purchased from the United States. It must be rough, being dependent on those capitalist bastards across the pond!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
